There were two options for attendance: Cabell Library room B41 or online via Zoom.  John Bogan started the Zoom session in B41 with Valerie Robnolt. All other attendees joined remotely.

Attendees (13):
Kristine Artello, Jonathan Becker, Michael Cabral, Xueming Chen, Mark Crosthwaite, Hope Kelly, Vimal Mishra, Kathryn Murphy-Judy, Sonali Rathore, Kirk Richardson, Valerie Robnolt, Carmen Rodriguez, Dayanjan Wijesinghe

Also in attendance (6):
Ex officio members: Alex Henson, Katherine Maynard, Mandara Savage
Alternates: John Bogan and Katie Shedden (alternates for Colleen Bishop)
Scribe: Jana Avery

Welcome and Introductions

Valerie opened the meeting and welcomed everyone. Each attendee introduced themselves and Valerie explained the purpose of this committee and it’s shared governance process. She informed the attendees of the technologies implemented for the committee, as follows:

• Communication: Google Group, email - ftac@vcu.edu
• File Sharing: Google Shared Drive - Faculty Technology Advisory Committee
• Website - ftac.vcu.edu

Valerie asked everyone to confirm they are receiving the emails from FTAC, and can access the shared drive. New  members, Hope Kelly and Katherine Maynard were not, so Jana added them as the meeting continued. Alternate attendees John Bogan and Katie Shedden, were added to the shared drive for access to the agenda.

Two members from the VCU Health System asked about access to FTAC’s Google Shared Drive. Alex Henson said that TS has a solution for that and that he and Jana Avery would follow-up.

Action Item (Jana Avery): Verify after the meeting, that everyone has access to the Google Group and Google Shared Drive. Update the membership list internally and on the FTAC website.

Action Item (Alex Henson and Jana Avery): Follow up on Google shared drive access for both FTAC members who are in the VCU Health System.

Follow-up Items from the Previous Meeting

Hope Kelly was asked to represent VCU Libraries on this committee. A motion was made to have the VCU Libraries representative as an appointed, voting member. The motion was seconded and approved by the committee.

The committee previously voted in favor of having two leadership positions--Chair and Vice Chair. The Chair will serve one year, and then the Vice Chair will serve as Chair the following year.  Valerie asked if anyone was interested in serving as Vice Chair. With no interest expressed, Valerie proposed that Kristy Artello serve as Vice Chair for the 2021-2022 academic year. The motion was seconded and approved by the committee.

Approval of Minutes

The April 5, 2021 meeting minutes were approved with the following revisions.

1. Faculty should not be expected to teach both in the classroom and online (HyFlex modality). Units should plan to provide entirely online or entirely in classroom sections. Nine responses were received, and the results are as follows:
• Yes - 66.7%
• No - 11.1%
• Undecided - 22.2%
2. Sections that are taught face-to-face only in one semester, must have a section fully online offered the following semester. Nine responses were received, and the results are as follows:
• Yes - 11.1%
• No - 44.4%
• Undecided - 44.4%

Questions, Issues and Concerns

Blackboard Data

Now that Blackboard is no longer available, faculty who did not export their course content and grades, but have a critical need to recover that data, should contact Technology Services (TS). A 3rd party vendor was contracted by TS for the purpose of Blackboard data backup and recovery. Email and knowledge base links were provided during the meeting, for anyone who needs more information about this.

---

Meeting Rooms

The question of campus meeting/conference rooms being set up for hyflex meetings was raised. Technology Services (TS) does not manage these rooms, but do have an extensive list of room designs and “standards” that can be shared if needed.  TS can provide free consultations and cost estimates. A turnkey, integrated system, provided by TS would require a service level agreement (SLA).  Independent rooms have a greater need for high-end support than in the past and this need will most likely be long-term or permanent. Building renovations and new construction planning includes an evaluation by Technology Services for implementation of technologies that support hybrid environments if possible. Recommendations from FTAC help escalate these types of concerns and support the push for prioritization and funding.
Action Item (Alex Henson): Continue participating in campus discussions about hybrid campuses, and will promote the need to upgrade technology in meeting rooms.

---

Hybrid vs. Hyflex

The committee discussed the importance of establishing common definitions regarding hybrid and hyflex environments. Hyflex should be interpreted as having a class where some people join via Zoom (remotely) and some are physically in the classroom. (i.e. A mixed interface during the actual class or meeting.) Hybrid would be teaching some days in a classroom and some days online. (Not in the classroom and online simultaneously.)

The brand new Raleigh building was mentioned as an example of how the planning was not done to prepare it for future types of learning environments, such as Hyflex. A room in the new Raleigh building only has one microphone and it is on the podium, way up in the corner of the room. Anyone who joins remotely cannot hear anything said in the room because the microphone is so far away. Someone would have to sit at the podium and let remote users know what’s being said. Also, there cannot be two computers running the class at the same time. Concerns about accessibility were raised. For example, if an instructor must connect remotely to teach due to a disability, will the classroom be modified to meet the accessibility requirements of the instructor?

This topic will be discussed further at the next meeting, in November.

Action Item (Alex Henson): Share FTAC’s feedback in ongoing discussions about this, which have already reached the Provost’s Office, Dr Rao, and the council of Presidents.

---

Faculty Support and Communication

Communication and Impact - Faculty were not aware of a recent change to CAS and the myVCU portal, until afterwards when they logged in and saw a different interface. Some thought they were being phished. Things like this need to be communicated before they happen. Additionally, there is no longer a search button, which negatively impacts how they use the system.

Action Item (Alex Henson): Responsibility for the myVCU portal changes falls within TS and he will follow-up on it.

---

Open Office Hours

Some faculty may not be aware of this and would not know where to look for this type of assistance. A suggestion was made to put a link in a Faculty group. It was also mentioned that these offerings are booked up and often not available during a reasonable timeframe. Information was shared about the drop-in schedule and how the days and times selected are based on historical trends of when most faculty attend. Open Office Hours were extended before the Fall semester started, and a partnership with Academic Technologies and Learning Systems contributed to offering additional training and consultations opportunities.

---

Support Resources

There is a lot of information posted in various places, and Academic Technologies has been great at sharing information with the Directors, Faculty Senate and other groups to help get information out, but there’s still some disconnect. Sometimes this shared information does not get passed on to faculty. It was agreed that FTAC members should relay these resources to their respective areas and colleagues. Most schools and colleges have their own IT committees, so members of FTAC should have some interaction with them as well. Learning Systems and VCU Online plan to continue and expand their partnership to offer the support faculty need, since many issues are technical, pedagogical, or both.

It was agreed that some clarification is needed to distinguish between the roles and services provided by different Technology Services teams and VCU Online teams. It is difficult for faculty to understand the distinction between Learning Systems, ALT Lab, Online@VCU, CTLE, The Workshop (Cabell), etc. Sometimes it is hard to know where an issue or question falls. Each team involved in providing support has specific areas of expertise, and depending on how a request is articulated, could lead to it being routed improperly. This entire discussion prompted some good questions and ideas that this committee should continue to explore.

• Improve triage and routing of help requests. Have one email (i.e. EdTech) that faculty can send requests to and have it be properly triaged, routed and communicated to them throughout the process.
• How to triage the “gray” areas?
• How can faculty articulate their needs to minimize confusion and improper routing?
• Is it possible to streamline governance around this (the different teams involved in providing support)?
• Could/should these related teams all be under one group?

---

Proctoring Solutions

Discussed Top Hat now having its own proctoring tool built in, and how that fits in with similar products we have tested or piloted. VCU has not purchased Top Hat’s proctoring tool and the Respondus solution is still available. There are many ongoing discussions that indicate the Provost’s Office might be making proctoring a higher priority. Academic Technologies piloted Examity, but didn’t get any feedback. Technology Services can publicize and communicate tools and services for faculty, but can’t really enforce them as VCU-supported without governance. Faculty involvement is critical. Once a large-scale solution is identified, plans are made to pilot it. Technology Services communicates it to the campus and tries to pull faculty onboard to learn about it, test it and share feedback. Other questions and thoughts from this discussion:

• Proctoring would be a great opportunity to use FTAC to assess the needs and demo a solution.
• Is FTAC a large enough representation of faculty to recommend and get a large-scale solution approved?
• How is it determined what products need to go through faculty approval?
• For proctoring or any tool, one size doesn’t fit all.

---

Funding and Approval

The need for faculty feedback is critical to piloting, funding and approval of software or systems. A large project that requires funding, will have committees involved to fully assess the needs and find the right solution. It must be initiated by the Provost’s Office (a level much higher than Technology Services). IT Governance works mostly with software or systems that are over $10k.

Items to consider:

• Identify when faculty involvement should be required for technology purchases or decisions.
• How do faculty provide their feedback? (survey, Faculty Senate, etc)
• There is a need to separate the academic (instructional) software from the technical (infrastructure/administrative) software. More justifications are being required, and this is generating valuable cross-departments conversations.
• Need a way to search for all software used at VCU, regardless of department.

Action Items (Alex Henson): Alex offered to look into this further. Any path we take for gathering feedback and approval will take time. Justifications, proposals, funding, etc. will require significant amounts of time and effort by those involved.

---

Fall and Spring Semester Plans, Questions, or Concerns

Concern regarding ADA considerations since the ADA coordinator (Crystal Combs) and our case worker have both left VCU. There are concerns that without these key people, decisions will not be inclusive.